2018 PLP 1947 (MLD)

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.

Through this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the applicant has assailed the order dated 09.05.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Larkana in the capacity of ex-officio Justice of Peace, whereby an application filed by the applicant for directions to lodge FIR against the proposed accused persons.

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant filed an application before learned Sessions Judge, Larkana by invoking his authority as Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Through the said application, he was seeking directions to the respondent/SHO to register a case/ FIR against the proposed accused in respect of an incident allegedly taken place on 27.04.2017, according to which proposed accused were responsible for trespassing in his house, spreading petrol over hedges surrounding two courtyards and trees and setting the same on fire.

3. While pressing the instant application, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is against the settled legal principle and contrary to the facts of the applicant's case. According to him, the proposed accused have acted with highhandedness and they not only trespassed in the house of applicant but also put on fire the surrounding hedge of his dwelling house as well as trees in the courtyard and caused loss to the applicant. He submits that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is duty bound to consider only whether a cognizable offence is made out or not. According to him, under the law it is necessary for the learned Sessions Judge to issue instructions to the respondent SHO for lodging a FIR as per verbatim of the applicant, if a cognizable offence is reported. He submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is to be set aside and an appropriate direction may be issued to the SHO concerned.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the proposed accused persons submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is well reasoned. He points out that the displite is actually over some landed property and the applicant intends to misuse the process of criminal law by lodging a false FIR.

5. The learn DDPP for the State supports the order passed by the leaned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and submits that no infirmity or perversity is pointed out in the said order.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned prosecutor and have also gone through the record annexed with this petition. According to the contents of proposed FIR, the applicant claims that proposed accused namely Hakim has filed a case in respect of illegal occupation which he could not prove and the trial Court observed that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. This fact narrated within the body of FIR, indicates that there is something fishy in the entire matter and the applicant has not come to the Court with clean hands. It is necessary that the entire circumspect of a Criminal case should be considered before passing an order. In this respect, I would like to refer to Mushtaq Ahmed's case PLD 1973 SC

418. The relevant observations in Mushtaq Ahmed's case Supra is as follows:-- "Everything said in a judgment and more particularly in a judgment in a criminal case must be understood with great particularity as having been said with reference to the facts of that particular case".

7. It has been specifically pointed out on behalf of the proposed accused that occurrence of the alleged incident arose in the backdrop of dispute between and so far, as the constitution of cognizable offence is concerned, the story of the applicant seems to be doubtful. I am, therefore, of the view that learned Sessions Judge in the capacity of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in him through applying his judicial mind and no illegality or irregularity has been committed by him while passing the impugned order for giving a direction for filing of a private complaint. In the existing position of affairs, the impugned Order does not call for any interference by this Court; therefore, the instant criminal miscellaneous application is hereby dismissed being devoid of any force in the same. However, as suggested by the learned Sessions Judge, the applicant may approach to the concerned Judicial Magistrate for filing a private complaint against the proposed accused persons, if he is advised so.

8. The above are the reasons for the short order dated 20.02.2018. HBT/M-91/Sindh Application dismissed.